New pro-life law outlines women's right

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2011 1:50 p.m.

    "If you support the death penalty, you are not pro-life."

    Uh... although I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, at least as the current system allows... it doesn't justify making any claim about pro-life, etc. If anyone disagrees with me on that... fine. Take any college philosophy class or ethics class that will cover the issue and try to make that argument. You won't get into it for 60 seconds before 10 counter-arguments would refute any chance that argument had. There are ways to argue successfully and ways to argue 'slogan-politically' and without real substance to the argument. Few people understand the first way.

    "Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal"

    No it didn't. You find me a place in the constitution where the people gave the power and responsibility of 'Judicial Review' to the U.S. supreme court and I'll reconsider the legality of the court dictating it's own legislative power... but until then I, and many who agree with me will stand by the claim that the U.S. Supreme court has gone down the unlawful path not designed in our agreed upon constitution. I peacefully ask someone to prove me wrong.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2011 11:26 a.m.

    Just to clarify something.

    'Voice of reason' and 'A voice of reason'... You will find on any board where we have both commented, not many but there are a few... that we completely disagree on a good deal of things if I remember right. I'm pretty sure that gay marriage (as often debated on here) was one of them. Just pointing it out :)

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 8, 2011 11:17 a.m.


    many people blame the Smoot-Hawley tarrifs for worsening, if not causing, the great depression.

    Just because a bill claims to be a reform, does not mean it is a good thing. Obamacare is a disaster and the repubs WERE looking out for our health when they opposed it.

  • clutch VERNAL, UT
    July 8, 2011 9:39 a.m.

    To Charles from the greater outdoors...

    Also, when I argued that men have no say in what happens to a fetus, I was not proclaiming that as a glorious right that I feel victorious in having thanks to the women's movement that allowed me to only think of myself, I was referring to what is NATURAL LAW. The fetus is contained inside the body of woman, and she has control of it until it is born and what she does effects the fetus. Accurate, no?

    What would practicing a man's right to the fetus look like? Would he not only have a right to see the fetus not be aborted but to be given up for adoption? Court-ordered pregnancy in which the woman is jailed and tied down, force-fed nutrition until the baby is born then adopted out? Men can not be given a legal right as to whether to abort (forced abortion?), adopt, or otherwise because it couldn't be enforced.

    So, should he still be financially responsible? Although it is not perfectly fair (nature rarely is)...yes. Father is more legally responsible for the creation of a child than the state if mother needs financial help!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 8, 2011 6:52 a.m.

    If you believe that war is a valid option in this world, you are not "pro-life". Someone who believed in the sanctity of life would be 100% opposed to war.

    Republicans believe that they just HAVE TO save the fetus so that it can grow up to be a soldier. Nothing more.

  • My2Cents Kearns, UT
    July 8, 2011 5:56 a.m.

    They call this a right? Its an oppression of a woman's rights. But what about a man? Can a man request an abortion and why not? It is his right to have equal say. No one has the right to dictate religious and personal values on another person, its persecution and illegal.

    These people and this law forgets that a fetus is not a legal person or resident or human being until it is born from full term development.

  • Sego Lilly Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2011 12:03 a.m.

    To Steve Jarvis - if it is so wrong for a single person to raise a child then from now on when a couple divorces or one of the parents dies then society should be knocking their door down and telling them to give the child(ren) up for adoption. after the death of a spouse the surviving spouse may make a concious decision to never marry again for the benefit of the children. Not everyone who has a child outside of marriage ends up never married and eventually the child does end up with a two parent household. I have seen people who five years after having a child outside of marriage end up marrying the child's father. One such couple even got married in the temple. They are still married today and have added 3 more children to the family.

    Also some women who have given up a child for adoption suffer from secondary infertility. The reason because they are afraid of losing another child to adoption. Check out delphi forums/origins - it's for people who have had adoption touch their life in not a wonderful way. You will be surprised how many adoptees are on the site.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    July 7, 2011 9:33 p.m.

    A couple of posters have mentioned that it is inhumane to have a mother look at her child through the modern miracle of ultrasound before she makes the decision to kill that child.

    Can somebody explain to me why it is inhumane to require a mother to look at her child?

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 8:55 p.m.

    "If the father has a morally legitimate interest in having a child, and the mother misleads the father into believing that she will give him a child if he does certain things, and the father does those things for the specific purpose of having a family, then it is wrong for the mother deliberately to prevent the father from having that child.
    Most legal systems don't allow a father to escape responsibility for his child and for paying to support that child; this applies even if the father had wanted the mother to have an abortion."
    -from the BBC Ethics website, a great resource on the concept of Father's rights.

    Women choose whether the baby lives... women choose whether the Father pays for it. You can't have it both ways.

    Now in all honesty, I'm not trying to prove points about abortion. I posted this because the claim on here made that those who want Father's rights don't understand equality.

    There are many moral theories... no one can objectively prove their own to be true. This is why we listen to other views, rather than state that they can't be valid because their different.

  • milhouse Atlanta, GA
    July 7, 2011 8:21 p.m.

    I am a responsible liberal. I think abortion should be limitedly legal, but I am a huge fan of reducing the numbers of abortions through family planning, sex education, adoption, and abstinence.

    That said, this seems like perfectly legitimate legislation. I don't know that 65% of women who obtain abortions are "coerced," but it certainly seems plausible that many do not understand the options available to them. This is also considerably more humane and respectful than forcing women to look at ultrasounds or other similar abortion reduction strategies.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    July 7, 2011 8:07 p.m.

    To those making the argument that men should have no say if an abortion (the intentional killing of an innocent child) I say that you don't understand the whole concept of "equality". Especially the women on here who cry for that at every turn.

    What you are finally admitting through your argument is that there actually IS a difference between the genders and God actually knew what He was doing when He created man and woman.

    Your arguments are so shallow but full of the me, me, me sentiment. Thank you 60's and your sexual revolution!

    It's crystal clear through your comments that men are just for the sperm and then for the money afterwards. How sweet of you.

    If the courts, at the behest of the women's rights movement and Libs, wouldn't have caved to their pressure then the fathers would still have to be named on the birth cert and responsible for their offspring. Instead we have a welfare program established to give women more money for more children and raise children in generational welfare. Again, thanks to the women lib'ers!

    Quit having sex before marriage and only with your spouse afterwards. Abortion goes bye-bye!

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 6:52 p.m.


    Using two accounts with only one letter spelled different, then posting the limit of 4 comments, then logging into the other account and posting 4 more identically formatted comments making the exact same points as the first account... on nearly every article involving conservative/liberal issues on the Deseret News...

    No one can really justify casting the stone.

  • clutch VERNAL, UT
    July 7, 2011 5:55 p.m.


    I would argue, as others have, that the fathers do not have a say in a mother's choice to have an abortion because it is the woman who has to carry the pregnancy. If he were to have a say, and could legally force a woman to continue a pregnancy, could he also force her to eat properly, go to the doctor, stop drinking or doing drugs, and not try to enduce an abortion in other harmful ways (herbs, poisons, accidents, etc?) A father can not make a woman take care of the fetus inside her own body and neither can society. Protecting children is not as easy as just demanding by law that a woman remain pregnant.

    Would you go so far as to say that fathers should be able to demand that children be given up for adoption, and if not, he shouldn't have to pay child support? Fathers have ONE chance to have their say regarding having a child or not, and that is at conception. After conception, they are responsible for their share of the cost of a child. I really hope men come to understand the gravity of this before having sex!

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    July 7, 2011 4:46 p.m.


    "Let's worry about the rule instead of the exception."

    The problem is that the exceptions are used as a hammer to make the rule. If not for the exceptions, the case would be much easier to outlaw non-exceptional abortions. But the exceptions play on people's heartstrings, and they're afraid that the exceptions will not be honored if non-exceptional abortions are made illegal. As a result, we keep allowing young people to treat the creative act as a form of recreation, and then allow them to kill the babies that result from those acts, thus turning them into murderers.

    "No one is denied critical health care because of lack of funds."

    Please tell me how to get this free access to health care. I understand that some people have figured out how to push the right buttons to get health care, even when they can't pay for it, but I know people who live in constant pain, unable to pursue the life they would pursue, because they can't afford the corrective procedures. I'm not advocating that society owes them medical care, but I don't understand how you can make the statement that you made.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 4:26 p.m.

    'Posting womens options is consistent with providing health care options.' - Counter Intelligence | 4:01 p.m.

    And if those options are made by volunteers instead of medical staff?

    *'Abortion foes' tactics highlight high NYC rate' - By Cristian Salazar - AP - Published by DSNews - 04/06/11

    'The center, where young women and couples are directed to a room decorated with pictures of mothers to watch videos on prenatal development and abortion, is among a small number of pregnancy service organizations accused by abortion rights groups and city officials of misleading women about their reproductive health options and disguising themselves as medical clinics.'

    *Sen Kyl mocked for making up numbers in abortion debate By Sara Israelsen-Hartley DSNews 04/12/11

    ' Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) was speaking on the floor of the Senate about his opposition to funding Planned Parenthood because abortions are "well over 90 percent" of what they do. (sic)
    According to data from Planned Parenthood, abortion procedures account for 3 percent of their total services, with STD testing and treatment and contraception tying for the top spot with 35 percent each. Article

    Not one, but TWO examples of those who are 'Pro-life'...


  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 7, 2011 4:23 p.m.

    Great idea! A waiting period would also be great. Say 24-48 hours. And the government should not pay for abortions.
    Anything we can do to stop someone from making the decision to do such a horrible thing that can come back to haunt them for the rest of their lives once they realize what they have done.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    July 7, 2011 4:23 p.m.

    "Information" which only presents one point of view in a matter open to debate, even when true, has another name - "propaganda". It's just one more hoop that women are made to jump through before getting a legal medical procedure, set up, this time, in the name of "education".

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 4:06 p.m.

    'Please stop with the "what about the rape, incest, life of the mother" complaints/questions....' - @Charles | 3:44 p.m.


    Because then people would have the face the reality that Republican canidates...

    STILL want you to have the baby, even if you are raped by your father.

    *'Sharron Angle's Advice For Rape Victims Considering Abortion: Turn Lemons Into Lemonade' - Sam Stein - Huffington Post - 07/08/10

    'One thing she has not backed away from has been her insistence that abortion should be outlawed universally, even in cases of rape and incest. (sic)
    ...when she insisted that 'a young girl raped by her father should know that "two wrongs don't make a right." Much good can come from a horrific situation like that, Angle added. Lemons can be made into lemonade.'

    If that 'less than 1%' was you?

    I'd want you to have an abortion. Regardless how small that number might be does not negate it happens.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    July 7, 2011 3:44 p.m.

    Please stop with the "what about the rape, incest, life of the mother" complaints/questions....

    All 3 of those combined don't even make up 1% of all abortions performed.

    Let's worry about the rule instead of the exception.

    @Blue: no one, I repeat, no one is denied critical health care because of lack of funds. Laws are already in place for that, so can we move on from your hyperbole?

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    July 7, 2011 2:55 p.m.

    Re: Blue -

    It seems to me that Republicans are/were not against healthcare reform but rather against a plan that mandates purchasing health insurance (NOT the same thing as health care) and they were against the creep towards government oversight of medical services(single payer system/government sponsored health insurance/health care.) I think all parties agree that health care availability needs to be improved.

    As far as the article goes...I agree with "Lost in DC". Information can't hurt.

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 7, 2011 2:55 p.m.


    I agree. The claim that there is research showing women are coerced always bothers me because I have heard this claim before yet no one has ever produced the research they claim exist.

    I am afraid we are going to have to just agree to disagree on whether it is an unborn life or a fetus, but thanks you for the thoughtful and respectful response.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 2:24 p.m.

    CI: "I know of no Republicans who find respect for human life to be an illegitimate government task."


    Remind yourself of the GOP's response to desperately needed health insurance reform.

    If ensuring that all Americans have access to critical health care is not "respecting human life" I don't know what is.

    And yet - Republicans opposed it.

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    July 7, 2011 2:09 p.m.

    I wonder what Casey Anthony's opinion on abortion is?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 1:53 p.m.


    "also legalise bombing abortion clinics so that people will stop and think. "

    terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 1:50 p.m.

    This actually sounds reasonable, unlike all those scripts that aren't even medically accurate that states are making abortion providers read 24 hours beforehand.

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    July 7, 2011 12:59 p.m.

    To Furry and George, You have both made good points. But I think the actual reason the biological father is not given a say is because the law makers do not want to call the aborted fetus a child. Once they label it as a human being they will have a more difficult time supporting abortion. Reason I also think this is true is because once the child is born, the father does have the right to stop an adoption. See its a baby then ... its not a baby before. That's how they do this self-talk into saying abortion is OK.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:42 p.m.

    "Not many years ago Democratic leaning New York City required warnings for pregnant women be posted in all bars in the City in order to highlight the effects of drinking on the unborn; But when Republican leaning Utah did similar, they were slammed as being invasive."

    Your comparison is not apt. Government warning persons of potential health problems by consuming or using a product is not the same as government requiring an entity to inform them of other options. A more apt comparison would be requiring McDonalds that they inform their customers that they also have the option of going to Wendy's, Carl's Junior, Taco Bell, or Pizza Hut.

    Now, do I think comparing abortion services to fast food is fair? No, but I am merely making the point that from a REPUBLICAN perspective, this kind of thing is BIG-GOVERNMENT, something they continually harp about being against...

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:35 p.m.

    Posting women's 'rights' in the room isn't going to be damaging women compared to forcing women to undergo counseling or to see an ultrasound of the unborn fetus that other states were tinkering with last year. I could only imagine the torture these laws have on a rape victim who is barely able to survive emotionally as it is.

    Since the poster brings up money in the form of child support from the father in an attempt to stave off an abortion, why not further bribe the mother by making a legal avenue to 'sell the child into adoption?' There is ALWAYS some reason the would-be mother is seeking an abortion. If she keeps the child as a single mom it is usually not done so in the best interest of society or the child even if that is preferable to an abortion. That child deserves a family. Make legal avenues where the mother can be fairly compensated for incubation, giving birth and then giving that child up for adoption and the rate of abortions will decrease drastically.

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 7, 2011 12:25 p.m.

    Maybe because its not the father that has to carry the pregnancy to term (including the risk that may go with doing so). The other sad reality is that the father can (and sadly to often do) choose to just walk away even after claiming they will not. There are good fathers out there that no doubt do care for their children but it does not negate the fact they do not take the risk and can more easily choose to walk away from the situation which is more then just paying child support (money).

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:15 p.m.

    It sounds like Louisiana has their act together about when it should be legal to terminate a human life.

    Way to go, LA! Let's hope more states follow suit and enact laws to protect children from those who want to profit by killing them.

  • Led Zeppelin II Bountiful, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:13 p.m.

    If a woman has an abortion she commits murder therefore what rights does she deserve? To murder an innocent child. Ok lets legalise abortion but also legalise bombing abortion clinics so that people will stop and think. These innocent babies deserve to live and have a right to live. How dare any person can be evil enough to murder an innocent child.

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:11 p.m.

    To George | 11:33 a.m. July 7, 2011

    It seems to me that the coercing goes the other way.

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:10 p.m.

    To Kami | 11:30 a.m. July 7, 2011

    When a man risks his life, health and well-being every second of every minute of every hour for nine straight months to gestate a pregnancy, he can have a say. Unless and until he puts his life and health on the line while gesetating a pregnancy he should not be able to force the woman to risk hers.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:08 p.m.

    Why all the complaints about additional information? What's wrong with being informed before making such a large decision?

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 7, 2011 11:33 a.m.

    Benjamin Clapper claims the research show that 65% of women who get abortions are being coerced into having one. really? I would like to see that research. Where is the evidance to support such a claim?

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    July 7, 2011 11:30 a.m.

    If the fathers must pay child support, why doesn't the father also have the right to object to an abortion? Are these laws all about money and who is going to pay to raise the kids? How about the basic rights the father should have with respect to his unborn children?

  • isrred Logan, UT
    July 7, 2011 11:25 a.m.

    "equires clinics to post signs explaining a women's rights and outlining options other than abortion."

    Nothing like some good hypocritical big-government Republican conservatism. If a Democrat were to pass laws REQUIRING that a private business do something this specific in its operation, Republicans would be ranting and screaming about government regulation and big-government interfering with free business principles.